Live Blogging the Census!

\\OFF-TOPIC// conversations about everything that has nothing to do with Conquer Club.

Moderator: Community Team

Forum rules
Please read the Community Guidelines before posting.
tzor
Posts: 4076
Joined: Thu Feb 22, 2007 9:43 pm
Gender: Male
Location: Long Island, NY, USA
Contact:

Re: Live Blogging the Census!

Post by tzor »

Metsfanmax wrote:Your statement is correct, but in a nation of 308,745,538 people, in order for your statement to be relevant, the fractions would need to be exactly, say, 27.5%, 12.5%, or 29.5%. Since those percentages of 308,745,538 all include some fraction of a person, we can safely discount that possibility. Thus the rounding was done incorrectly.


No, the problem is easier, .5 is the border case. Having two of them in the calculation, using simple rounding, will cause error. There is a more advanced form of rounding where .5 either rounds up or down depending on the even or odd nature of the digit that preceeds it. This tends to correct the double .5 error.
Image
User avatar
Metsfanmax
Posts: 6722
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 11:01 pm
Gender: Male

Re: Live Blogging the Census!

Post by Metsfanmax »

tzor wrote:
Metsfanmax wrote:Your statement is correct, but in a nation of 308,745,538 people, in order for your statement to be relevant, the fractions would need to be exactly, say, 27.5%, 12.5%, or 29.5%. Since those percentages of 308,745,538 all include some fraction of a person, we can safely discount that possibility. Thus the rounding was done incorrectly.


No, the problem is easier, .5 is the border case. Having two of them in the calculation, using simple rounding, will cause error. There is a more advanced form of rounding where .5 either rounds up or down depending on the even or odd nature of the digit that preceeds it. This tends to correct the double .5 error.


Those are still arbitrary constructions, and don't matter at the point where having .5 is either impossible due to the numerology involved, or is statistically incredibly unlikely.
User avatar
thegreekdog
Posts: 7246
Joined: Thu Jul 17, 2008 6:55 am
Gender: Male
Location: Philadelphia

Re: Live Blogging the Census!

Post by thegreekdog »

MAAAATHHHH!!!! NOOOOOOOOO!!!!! LEAVE ME ALONE!

It does depend on counties in New York. It also depends in New Jersey and Pennsylvania. Southern New Jersey is fairly conservative, so is the "Republican T" in Pennsylvania (i.e. everywhere except Philadelphia and Pittsburgh).
Image
Army of GOD
Posts: 7192
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 4:30 pm
Gender: Male

Re: Live Blogging the Census!

Post by Army of GOD »

Metsfanmax wrote:
tzor wrote:
Metsfanmax wrote:Your statement is correct, but in a nation of 308,745,538 people, in order for your statement to be relevant, the fractions would need to be exactly, say, 27.5%, 12.5%, or 29.5%. Since those percentages of 308,745,538 all include some fraction of a person, we can safely discount that possibility. Thus the rounding was done incorrectly.


No, the problem is easier, .5 is the border case. Having two of them in the calculation, using simple rounding, will cause error. There is a more advanced form of rounding where .5 either rounds up or down depending on the even or odd nature of the digit that preceeds it. This tends to correct the double .5 error.


Those are still arbitrary constructions, and don't matter at the point where having .5 is either impossible due to the numerology involved, or is statistically incredibly unlikely.


Then who's wrong, the Census? Saxi?












How dare you call Saxi wrong?
mrswdk is a ho
User avatar
Metsfanmax
Posts: 6722
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 11:01 pm
Gender: Male

Re: Live Blogging the Census!

Post by Metsfanmax »

Army of GOD wrote:
Metsfanmax wrote:
tzor wrote:
Metsfanmax wrote:Your statement is correct, but in a nation of 308,745,538 people, in order for your statement to be relevant, the fractions would need to be exactly, say, 27.5%, 12.5%, or 29.5%. Since those percentages of 308,745,538 all include some fraction of a person, we can safely discount that possibility. Thus the rounding was done incorrectly.


No, the problem is easier, .5 is the border case. Having two of them in the calculation, using simple rounding, will cause error. There is a more advanced form of rounding where .5 either rounds up or down depending on the even or odd nature of the digit that preceeds it. This tends to correct the double .5 error.


Those are still arbitrary constructions, and don't matter at the point where having .5 is either impossible due to the numerology involved, or is statistically incredibly unlikely.


Then who's wrong, the Census? Saxi?












How dare you call Saxi wrong?


At the risk of being censured by the unofficial CC happiness ombudsman, I'm going to have say yes, Saxi's wrong...
Army of GOD
Posts: 7192
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 4:30 pm
Gender: Male

Re: Live Blogging the Census!

Post by Army of GOD »

WOODRUFF!!!!!!!!! :evil:
mrswdk is a ho
spurgistan
Posts: 1868
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 11:30 pm

Re: Live Blogging the Census!

Post by spurgistan »

john9blue wrote:ITT: a tax attorney schools an m.s. physics student in math


And one very confusing sentence.

Edit: ok, I read "schools" as referring to academic institutions. I need to be more street.

I do feel that metsfan is kinda right here, the chances that two of the numbers end in exactly one half a percent is pretty slim.
Mr_Adams wrote:You, sir, are an idiot.


Timminz wrote:By that logic, you eat babies.
User avatar
john9blue
Posts: 1268
Joined: Mon Aug 20, 2007 6:18 pm
Gender: Male
Location: FlutterChi-town

Re: Live Blogging the Census!

Post by john9blue »

for example:

unrounded: 39.7% + 29.7% + 30.6% = 100%

rounded: 40% + 30% + 31% = 101%

that's where the discrepancy lies

edit: or to use saxi's example...

unrounded: 29.8% + 27.7% + 29.9% + 12.6% = 100%

rounded: 30% + 28% + 30% + 13% = 101%

double edit: either that OR there are people with honorary college degrees that haven't graduated high school.
natty_dread wrote:Do ponies have sex?
Army of GOD wrote:the term heterosexual is offensive. I prefer to be called "normal"
(proud member of the Occasionally Wrongly Banned)
User avatar
Iliad
Posts: 10394
Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2007 12:48 am

Re: Live Blogging the Census!

Post by Iliad »

Night Strike wrote:
karel wrote:
Night Strike wrote:Biggest headline: people are moving out of democratic states into republican states. Hopefully they don't keep those same values that have been tearing down the states they left.



whatever :roll:


Enjoy ignoring facts? Illinois and New York are states dominated by liberals, yet they lost people. Texas is a very conservative state and Florida has no state income tax. Both gained in population. Liberal states of California, New York, and Illinois have the largest state deficits in the country. Conservative states are either balanced or run surpluses. New Jersey was massively in a deficit, and a conservative governor has begun to restore order to their fiscal situation. Liberal spending policies have bankrupted the states that they have been living in, so now they're moving on to other states and naively thinking the same policies won't bankrupt those states.

You know what's a useful skill, nightstrike? Being able to think for oneself. Let's stop assuming for one sec that all people in blue states are liberals and all people in red states are conservatives. There's demographics and then there's generalisations. I have no doubt that you have been spoon fed the story of the stampede of liberals who are moving states, voting and destroying the states behind them. Why does it have to be that reason though?

It could be that conservatives in blue states, convinced by partisan politics that their state is embarking on socialism etc, are leaving for red states. Things have been getting very divided now especially on key issues.

Another thing that you could notice is the urban vs rural split, though that is commonly related to political affiliation. New York is an expensive place to live and perhaps people who are unemployed or cannot afford a place in an expensive urban location are moving to cheaper rural ones.

It also could be due to age. As most people know, the population of most western countries is ageing, that is the elderly are an increasing proportion of the overall population. This movement could be due to retirements.

It could be due to job demand being down in urban locations, leading to a then expected migration towards rural areas perhaps.
My point is, rather than blindly accepting what you'e been told about events you should think for yourself. The facts are so far pretty bare and it's pretty hard to be sure of what the main motivating factor is, hint people could be moving for different reasons.
User avatar
saxitoxin
Posts: 13415
Joined: Fri Jun 05, 2009 1:01 am
Gender: Male
Contact:

Re: Live Blogging the Census!

Post by saxitoxin »

Metsfanmax wrote:
thegreekdog wrote:
Army of GOD wrote:
thegreekdog wrote:49.5% rounded up is 50%.
50.5% rounded up is 51%.
49.5% plus 50.5% is 100%.
50% plus 51% is 101%.


Leave the math to math people, you lawyer.


So I'm wrong? I'm so confused.


Your statement is correct, but in a nation of 308,745,538 people, in order for your statement to be relevant, the fractions would need to be exactly, say, 27.5%, 12.5%, or 29.5%. Since those percentages of 308,745,538 all include some fraction of a person, we can safely discount that possibility. Thus the rounding was done incorrectly.


OMFG Poindexter ... I'm gonna haze the shit outta you.

Yes, I should have rounded using a logarithmic scale considering the set size.

But I'm still gonna haze the shit outta you!
Pack Rat wrote:if it quacks like a duck and walk like a duck, it's still fascism

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=241668&start=200#p5349880
User avatar
InkL0sed
Posts: 2370
Joined: Sat Jun 23, 2007 4:06 pm
Gender: Male
Location: underwater
Contact:

Re: Live Blogging the Census!

Post by InkL0sed »

john9blue wrote:double edit: either that OR there are people with honorary college degrees that haven't graduated high school.

in this thread or in the census?
User avatar
KINER
Posts: 0
Joined: Fri Dec 03, 2010 10:18 pm

Re: Live Blogging the Census!

Post by KINER »

i wonder if papers filled out as other people, such as bob dylan really count... i wonder
skipopidid
Posts: 46
Joined: Tue Dec 07, 2010 1:38 am
Gender: Female

Re: Live Blogging the Census!

Post by skipopidid »

InkL0sed wrote:
john9blue wrote:double edit: either that OR there are people with honorary college degrees that haven't graduated high school.

in this thread or in the census?



well.. after working for the census i know that the latter is possible... and i'm fairly certain after reading enough on these forums that there is a good possibility that this thread probably has some too.
User avatar
Metsfanmax
Posts: 6722
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 11:01 pm
Gender: Male

Re: Live Blogging the Census!

Post by Metsfanmax »

john9blue wrote:for example:

unrounded: 39.7% + 29.7% + 30.6% = 100%

rounded: 40% + 30% + 31% = 101%

that's where the discrepancy lies

edit: or to use saxi's example...

unrounded: 29.8% + 27.7% + 29.9% + 12.6% = 100%

rounded: 30% + 28% + 30% + 13% = 101%

double edit: either that OR there are people with honorary college degrees that haven't graduated high school.


The "discrepancy" is that people round when they shouldn't. When you round to the nearest percentage as saxi did, you get numbers that don't add to 100%. The point isn't that saxi managed to incorrectly round up and/or down, it's that by rounding, he got numbers that added up to 101%, which makes no sense.
User avatar
saxitoxin
Posts: 13415
Joined: Fri Jun 05, 2009 1:01 am
Gender: Male
Contact:

Re: Live Blogging the Census!

Post by saxitoxin »

Metsfanmax wrote:
john9blue wrote:for example:

unrounded: 39.7% + 29.7% + 30.6% = 100%

rounded: 40% + 30% + 31% = 101%

that's where the discrepancy lies

edit: or to use saxi's example...

unrounded: 29.8% + 27.7% + 29.9% + 12.6% = 100%

rounded: 30% + 28% + 30% + 13% = 101%

double edit: either that OR there are people with honorary college degrees that haven't graduated high school.


The "discrepancy" is that people round when they shouldn't. When you round to the nearest percentage as saxi did, you get numbers that don't add to 100%. The point isn't that saxi managed to incorrectly round up and/or down, it's that by rounding, he got numbers that added up to 101%, which makes no sense.



keep talking, Susan

Image
Pack Rat wrote:if it quacks like a duck and walk like a duck, it's still fascism

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=241668&start=200#p5349880
User avatar
GabonX
Posts: 899
Joined: Sat Jul 08, 2006 10:38 am
Gender: Male
Contact:

Re: Live Blogging the Census!

Post by GabonX »

Metsfanmax wrote:
john9blue wrote:for example:

unrounded: 39.7% + 29.7% + 30.6% = 100%

rounded: 40% + 30% + 31% = 101%

that's where the discrepancy lies

edit: or to use saxi's example...

unrounded: 29.8% + 27.7% + 29.9% + 12.6% = 100%

rounded: 30% + 28% + 30% + 13% = 101%

double edit: either that OR there are people with honorary college degrees that haven't graduated high school.


The "discrepancy" is that people round when they shouldn't. When you round to the nearest percentage as saxi did, you get numbers that don't add to 100%. The point isn't that saxi managed to incorrectly round up and/or down, it's that by rounding, he got numbers that added up to 101%, which makes no sense.

True, but you're still an idiot..
Spazz Arcane wrote:If birds could swim and fish could fly I would awaken in the morning to the sturgeons cry. If fish could fly and birds could swim I'd still use worms to fish for them.
saxitoxin wrote:I'm on Team GabonX
User avatar
Metsfanmax
Posts: 6722
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 11:01 pm
Gender: Male

Re: Live Blogging the Census!

Post by Metsfanmax »

GabonX wrote:
Metsfanmax wrote:
john9blue wrote:for example:

unrounded: 39.7% + 29.7% + 30.6% = 100%

rounded: 40% + 30% + 31% = 101%

that's where the discrepancy lies

edit: or to use saxi's example...

unrounded: 29.8% + 27.7% + 29.9% + 12.6% = 100%

rounded: 30% + 28% + 30% + 13% = 101%

double edit: either that OR there are people with honorary college degrees that haven't graduated high school.


The "discrepancy" is that people round when they shouldn't. When you round to the nearest percentage as saxi did, you get numbers that don't add to 100%. The point isn't that saxi managed to incorrectly round up and/or down, it's that by rounding, he got numbers that added up to 101%, which makes no sense.

True, but you're still an idiot..


I am an idiot, you're right. I'm an idiot because I keep on convincing myself that it might possibly be worth my time to click the "show this user's post" link when I see you post. I think I'll be done with that.
Army of GOD
Posts: 7192
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 4:30 pm
Gender: Male

Re: Live Blogging the Census!

Post by Army of GOD »

You're also an idiot for reading this post and thinking this was going to be any addition to the discussion in this thread
mrswdk is a ho
User avatar
InkL0sed
Posts: 2370
Joined: Sat Jun 23, 2007 4:06 pm
Gender: Male
Location: underwater
Contact:

Re: Live Blogging the Census!

Post by InkL0sed »

Army of GOD wrote:You're also an idiot for reading this post and thinking this was going to be any addition to the discussion in this thread

And you're an idiot to think I'm kidding in this post.
User avatar
Metsfanmax
Posts: 6722
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 11:01 pm
Gender: Male

Re: Live Blogging the Census!

Post by Metsfanmax »

Army of GOD wrote:You're also an idiot for reading this post and thinking this was going to be any addition to the discussion in this thread


you got me
User avatar
john9blue
Posts: 1268
Joined: Mon Aug 20, 2007 6:18 pm
Gender: Male
Location: FlutterChi-town

Re: Live Blogging the Census!

Post by john9blue »

Metsfanmax wrote:The "discrepancy" is that people round when they shouldn't. When you round to the nearest percentage as saxi did, you get numbers that don't add to 100%. The point isn't that saxi managed to incorrectly round up and/or down, it's that by rounding, he got numbers that added up to 101%, which makes no sense.


accuracy and ease of comprehension of the individual percentages is more important than having them add up to 100 when the occasional person decides to do the math without knowing that they are rounded

imo
natty_dread wrote:Do ponies have sex?
Army of GOD wrote:the term heterosexual is offensive. I prefer to be called "normal"
(proud member of the Occasionally Wrongly Banned)
User avatar
saxitoxin
Posts: 13415
Joined: Fri Jun 05, 2009 1:01 am
Gender: Male
Contact:

Re: Live Blogging the Census!

Post by saxitoxin »

GabonX wrote:idiot


Metsfanmax wrote:idiot


Army of God wrote:idiot


inkL0sed wrote:idiot


bros, chillax ... no use having a whose is bigger contest when Saxi's in the thread; it'll just be a battle for second place
Pack Rat wrote:if it quacks like a duck and walk like a duck, it's still fascism

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=241668&start=200#p5349880
User avatar
Timminz
Posts: 5579
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 1:05 pm
Gender: Male
Location: At the store

Re: Live Blogging the Census!

Post by Timminz »

metsfan: your thoughts on rounding discrepancies are misplaced. That kind of stuff happens all the time, when dealing with percentages.
User avatar
Metsfanmax
Posts: 6722
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 11:01 pm
Gender: Male

Re: Live Blogging the Census!

Post by Metsfanmax »

Timminz wrote:metsfan: your thoughts on rounding discrepancies are misplaced. That kind of stuff happens all the time, when dealing with percentages.


Are you kidding? I would think that blaming saxi for something would be the perfect place for me to vent my anger over rounding issues.
User avatar
john9blue
Posts: 1268
Joined: Mon Aug 20, 2007 6:18 pm
Gender: Male
Location: FlutterChi-town

Re: Live Blogging the Census!

Post by john9blue »

fuckin rounding, how does it work??
natty_dread wrote:Do ponies have sex?
Army of GOD wrote:the term heterosexual is offensive. I prefer to be called "normal"
(proud member of the Occasionally Wrongly Banned)
Post Reply

Return to “Acceptable Content”